Author Topic: Snapshot/scenario frame idea  (Read 626 times)

Offline Seeker

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
Snapshot/scenario frame idea
« on: May 08, 2005, 01:35:06 PM »
This thread

Discusses the really large artillery available to the Axis. I'd imagine some of these pieces so enormous that the presence; or their loss; could represent a strategic shift of balance in a local area rather the same way as a CV does at sea.

Land battleships; if you will. Imagine Big Bertha as a land bound Tirpitz threatening your lines of supply; if you will.

But how to represent this in AH?

Well;  couldn't we use shore guns in land? (Map building question?)

At it's simplest incarnation; imagine one small; two sided map.

At two diagonal corners are large airbases; with heavies enabled.

Radiating out from the corners are two arcs of shore batteries; lets say three arcs. The SB's should be very hard; an SB should be a target of frame importance due to thier firepower; they shouldn't fall over to the first flight of Lancs.

Dot a few small airbases around; no heavies.

Each SB has a GV base.

Each SB should be in range of it's nieghbours.



No Goons (M3 only)

Capture the opposing large base to win.

Should force a nice split of attention between air and ground forces.

Good map design could lead to interesting terrain induced choke points  to encourage GV battles.

(fixed link)
« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 01:53:39 PM by Seeker »

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10888
Snapshot/scenario frame idea
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2005, 06:31:09 PM »
Neutralizing opposing SBs / GBs is shockingly quick for a team willing to put in the effort.  It was done in the Kurland scenario a little over a year ago where most of the guns faced out of the pocket.  Each vehicle base had 3 Gun Batteries facing the Russians.  The Russians on the other hand (artillery nuts in WWII) had only a few GBs facing inward on the pocket but it was more then enough.  They had an opening 5 minute salvo at the begining of each frame.

The Axis side CO declared all enemy tanks and anti-air as unimportant.  Instead he went for the limited number of M3s thoroughly defeating all Allied captures in spite of Allied occupation of the bases.  This is a common tactic used in capture events.  He was able to do this because he was given twice as many aircraft as the Russians.

With a proper redesign, Kurland could yet be a very enjoyable scenario.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10888
Snapshot/scenario frame idea
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2005, 02:20:24 AM »
OK, you've got me thinking and I've been kicking this around with emodin and it has possibilities.  I'm at the end of moving but it will be weeks before I can do a wright-up and send it in.  I have a battle in mind already but need to do the research to see if it’s appropriate.  If someone wants to pick this up and run with it, you have my blessing, emodin suggested Kurst off the top of his head but we both have reservations.

The quick outline for a GV based scenario follows:

Artillery is pretty fragile.  It shouldn’t be hardened, it should be weak but scattered all over the map in clumps or clusters representing gun batteries that can be rotated to face any direction.  In other words, there should be many clusters of 4 GBs facing outward on the compass points, E,W,N,S.  A jabo or tank could easily neutralize a cluster but there are many many scattered clusters.  Only in the no mans land at the original front line would there be no artillery clusters.  Tests are needed to see if adjustments in artillery shell power can be made, just in case it’s needed.

Many, close together, Small Towns to capture.  Few remote spawn points.  Town spacing dependent on the terrain between towns.  Design for travel time, not distance, to be about 8-10 minutes.  Artillery would not be in the town but between towns though not directly on the travel path between towns.

Intact Vehicle hangers should represent the presents of a military force.

Destroyed Vehicle hangers represent the eminent routing of the defenders or control by the attackers.  Therefore, M3s should be unlimited but capture troops should be high enough to keep two tanks and an M3 from sneaking captures, say 15 troops.

Vehicle hangers should be rebuild by the CM when a base is captured OR possibly better, PlayerResupplyTime=max, base supplies should be set high enough to allow one or two M3s to rebuild the base 100%.

Set WeaponLethality[Hard] ~ 0.5. Jabo bombs are useful against GVs but less useful against VHs and town buildings.

Most bases are not bases, they are Small Towns with a VH and some manned ack, bunkers (troops) and some trees connected by roads.

The Small Towns would be close enough to allow ground travel between them without remote spawn points in most cases.

Small Towns with remote spawn points to airfields would represent cross roads or transportation hubs.  Used to keep the airfields at distance from the main GV battle area.

Live would be something like 1 fighter + 1 Jabo + 5 tanks + unlimited GB or M3 rides in a 3 hour frame.

If possible, created a complete set of terrain tiles with enough roughness to slightly slow travel off the roads and make accurate shooting while on the move difficult.

It’s late so that’s all for now.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Snapshot/scenario frame idea
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2005, 02:45:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Easyscor
The Axis side CO declared all enemy tanks and anti-air as unimportant.  Instead he went for the limited number of M3s thoroughly defeating all Allied captures in spite of Allied occupation of the bases.  This is a common tactic used in capture events.  He was able to do this because he was given twice as many aircraft as the Russians.

With a proper redesign, Kurland could yet be a very enjoyable scenario.


mmm....

AFAIK, the Russian in Kurland had more planes and tanks than us.

We had an attriction rule that did'nt affected the russian.

Our plus was a good command structure: each squad commander understud perfectly his role in the big design, and each played perfectly well, even (almost) without the CO (the last 2 frames).

The weapons systems were used at the max effectivity, including the second line SBs (thank to Camo's ideas).

The effort of the attackers seemed, by our POV (in the 2 frames that I attended) not enough coordinated, expecially in time and use of the assets.

A steamroller tactic (similar to the real life russian tactic) cut have been more effective, with multiple waves.

But, of course, I have only half of the half picture, so a big IMHO is mandatory.

Agree with the last sentence.

Ciao
:)

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10888
Snapshot/scenario frame idea
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2005, 11:03:53 AM »
Hi Naso!
No question, you guys did an excellent job and in no way do I slight you or anyone else here.  I agree with most of what you said.  I am speaking only to the conditions set forth as I see them and would like to see it replayed some day.

I tried to check the old Kurland pages but not surprisingly, they are down now so I’ll have to go on my notes and my questionable memory.  I also see I misspoke on the number of fighters but here are the reasons I felt this way even before the first practice.

In the original write up, it was acknowledged that the Axis had an advantage because they were playing defense and would be able to move their forces around quickly within the pocket and stated that there would be half as many Axis players as Allied players.  Everything sounds good so far but the Allied side had trouble recruiting twice as many players and was far short on the roster well before frame one, still, not the Axis fault.

The actual scheduled numbers of FIGHTER rides was as follows:

Each frame the Allied side received
60 La5
20 La7
30 Yak9T
40 Yak9U
150 Totals

Each frame the Axis side received
30 190a5
45 190a8
45 190f8
30 109g10
3 109g6
153 Totals

This isn’t 1:2 as stated in the write up, it’s 1:1.

To make maters worse, the actual number of players registered going into the first frame indicated the fighter balance would be 149 Axis fighters to 103 Allied fighters.  You can check the logs and confirm, but this won’t be far off in ratio.

And no, I’m not going to count IL2s, A20s or Ki67s. IMO these were bait in the Kurland setup and the logs only confirm my opinion.  Why would I make such a charge?  Because of the tasks assigned.  While the Axis bomber/jabo rides were available for attack against GVs, they were also more then capable against the Allied bombers and even the Allied fighters while the reverse is not true.  Instead of supporting the Allied ground assaults, the Allied bombers were expected to hit scattered targets that had noting to do with the immediate effort to capture territory.  The write up had targets assigned to the Ki67s that were ridiculous.  There was no way to carry enough bombs to kill all the Hangers at the Port even with a full roster and a 100% hit rate.  We simply couldn’t carry enough bombs to do the job the write up called for.  Not the Axis fault.  I spent hours testing strikes on the Prince Eugene(?) and concluded it would cost the entire Allied jabo force to sink it, if you could find it before the Axis found the bombers.

To make matters worse, the Ports were surrounded by Strat factories that massacred the Allied A20s and IL2s.  A case of the shacks biting the shack killers :lol:

The Allies had the edge in GVs, no question.  I didn’t make any notes on it but from the registered players it would have been something like 75 Axis GVs vs 103 Allied GVs.

Least you think I’m sour grapes after being beaten, I spent weeks debating my friends the CMs over these issues.  IMO they just got it wrong but I wasn’t persuasive enough to make them see the need for changes.  I flew it anyway and took no pleasure in seeing it play out even worse then I had predicted.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Snapshot/scenario frame idea
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2005, 03:24:24 AM »
We can agree for sure that the main failure in Kurland was in the community, not so much in the design itself.

I mean in the community in the sense that the change we have seen in the Main Arena players has affected the once strong scenario-addicted part of the community.

Many have left die the account for the burn out coming from the new Main Arena gameplay.

Some are still around (like me, even if I am recovering a burn out myself) and show in the scenarios.

But for sure the big numbers of good scenario players are gone.

For a good scenario player I mean a player that want to play the role in full immersion, who want to abide the rules and the orders up to the bitter end ;) , who dont care what plane have to fly or wich mission have to do, is here for the immersion factor (yes, ok, to win, too, but not exclusively), and so on.

We are putting many hopes in the TOD, but I am worried that it will not help to bring back the "good" ones, and since HTC need to earn the living from this game, the main-style playerbase will prevail at the end, the Borgs, we will be left with the choise to be assimilated, or fly for greener pastures.

After this nice touch of optimism, ;) about Kurland's design:

On the bombers I agree, the choise cut have been better (B26s, for example), maybe even cutting out the fixed targets.

As for the ships, maybe you forgot that I lost one of the 2 battleships due to the A20s, and the other one was saved because I moved it in a "safer" zone.

The tactics.

I used a tactic in some way dictated by the design itself:

With each player having 3 lifes, one for each type, I devided each squad in 3 subgroups, each section starting with one different of the 3 ride type.

At the end of each mission, the survivors of the section had the orders to land the ride and switch to the next type, the others sections of the group doing the same in almost the same moment.

In this way I had 3 fresh waves of the basic force configuration, with a possible fourth wave composed of the surviving rides.

Part one completed, optimization of forces.

Placement:

AFAIK, the map design suggested 3 main directives of attack:

- southern, along the coast, with little artillery coverage on your side, probably of medium difficulty for you, having too few bases to mount a main attack, and with a good configuration to mount a flanking counter attack from the center bases.
I placed there a medium tanks unit.

- Center, almost no artillery on your side, bad "roads", very positive in position for me. In this sector I decided to stand ground and placed one heavy and two medium tank units, all in such a position to resist an attack in said directive, but capable to support relatively easyly the defence of the other 2 directives.

- Northern, where you had the better artillery configuration (at least for the first strike), but where I had the opportunity to mount a counterfire on my own bases to interdict the battlefield (this was Camo's genial idea). on this directive I placed the other heavy unit, plus a medium one (working on memories, so the total count may be wrong). This was the directive you choose.

I then placed the planes, with the jabos in 2 groups deep in the back, between the directives, and the fighters in 3 groups, along the directives (but in second line), with the deep flexible defence of the command group and a fighter group as interceptors/second line fighters.

At this point the game was only to filter the sighings of the spotters (people waiting to up GVs) scattered along the line, trying to guess "where the horde is attacking".

The differential placements of my units, and consequentially the different timing of arrival on the battlezone, gave the impression of multiple waves of small groups for each of the 3 real waves of units, each section, at the arrival, had the correct weapon for the duty.

My only role, after the planning part, was to hold my bloodthirsty men at bay, untill the horde show itself and then point and shout "there", unleashing the wolves. :D
The amaizing Group leaders and combatants that I had the fortune and the honor to command, took care of the rest, with my little contribute in timing the rotation.

Now I gotta go work.
cya later

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10888
Snapshot/scenario frame idea
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2005, 09:31:06 AM »
I think we would sing the same song if we got together and built another Kurland.  That also applies to TOD, the MA and burn out.  On winning, yes, it’s much more fun to be on the winning side. :D

I forgot that we sank any ships until you mentioned it.  IMO that would be another flaw.  I disagree with most setups that takes rides away during an event.  Why would anyone sign up for more scenarios when after weeks of practice, if they couldn’t get their ride because someone sunk a ship in the last scenario?  Probably a lot of dissatisfied customers there.  Oops, Coral Sea.  That was an exception and a precondition of the whole design so by my rule, I guess Coral Sea should have had that as a win condition and been declared over the minute the Allied carriers were sunk in Frame 3.  Or spare Allied planes could have been moved to a land base for one last chance at sinking the invasion fleet with a fall back Snapshot ready for later frames.  SlvrFox did a great design, who would have thought the IJN could sink both Allied carriers, pretty improbable.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001